to not be bothered where the Olympians are educated

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

While looking at the BBC news app this morning I came across this article which says that half of the Team GB Olympians come from private education. Only 7% of the country is privately educated.

I don't think it matters where people are educated, they work hard and deserve what they achieve. It's kind of obvious that many sports are expensive to participate in, rowing boats don't come cheap. Why does anyone consider it a problem?

Isn't there generally more of a competitive ethos in many private schools than state ones? I would have thought along with facilities that would be a contributing factor.

All-must-have-prizes sports days hardly do much to foster an individual desire to win, which you need in spades to succeed as an athlete.

Middle class parents pay for their kids to join all sorts of clubs, so they get to experience different sports. THey are probably the same parents who have all of their children's spare time tied up.

As I am technically middle class after going to university, I suppose I'll have to be hoiking my dcs around to clubs and things.

But apart from martical arts so they have less risk of having their heads kicked in round here, they will hopefully spend their childhoods playing out, as I , selfishly, have no desire to ferry them here and there.

Um, does anyone realise this could be because a lot of private school offer sporting scholarships??

Just because 50% of team GB went to private school doesn't mean 50% come from weathly families at all.

I went to school with several of the Aussie swimmers, one of the top private girls schools in the country, but none of their parents would have paid full fees.

I don't care

American sportsmen and women usually have a university education at the very least

I'm sure there are lots of sportspeople, athletes, boxers, gymnasts etc from Team GB aren't privately educated, just work bloody hard

Of course anyone who competes at that level has a certain something in their DNA, call it competitiveness, will to succeed, sheer bloodymindedness, whatever. But it simply can't be the case that that 'bit' of DNA is more prevalent in privately-educated people. And if we could find that bit of DNA in more people, we'd produce more top sportspeople, which in turn inspire children to move more, which in turn helps us a nation to be fitter and healthier.

So I believe that we should try to understand where our sports people come from, and understand why they're not coming from state education, and try to fix that. It doesn't take away from our Olympians acheivements, not one little bit. It just helps us find more Olympians in the future.

It doesn't bother me that much. There are a lot of pushy parents with children at state schools that think their little darlings are go to lead the world at something or other. What is more worrying I think that nearly all the Cabinet went to public school.

No body would accuse the sporting types of being too intellectual. Its a bit rat racy

IMO the reason for this is not because of lack of equipment or funding in state schools. The main difference in a state school vs an independent / private one is that state schools purposely do not foster a spirit of competition and desire to win - at anything, sport and academic. Everyone should just be average. Independent schools on the other hand provide the spirit to be the best at everything and if they see an ounce of talent hone in an develop that, rather than hold back. Not just sport but every subject
Take the dumbing down of sports alongside this attitude, that everyone is a 'winner' that everyone gets a medal for taking part, that as long as you give it your best winning is not important and you'll quickly see why private schools win over state schools in many respects.
They allow kids to excel at things and actively encourage competitive behavior
My children attend a local private school for this reason - and there are children there who are academically good at say maths and are moved up a set, given extra lessons to further develop this whereas in a state school they would be held back

That's complete shit, and a much peddled cliche. If you are sending your DC to private school because you truly believe that state schools aspire for everyone to be average then you are deluded.

I firmly believe that school has bugger all to do with it. Home life is a much bigger influence IMO. On the other (longer) thread about this, a poster has set out the schooling of the GB medal winners so far this games. Not at all dominated by athletes who went to private school. And in some cases, that makes no difference anyway. Some of them didn't take up their sport until university or later anyway.

That's a good point about university evil the role they play in introducing/ encoraging young adults to take part in sports doesn't get talked about as much as schools, does it? We used to get Wednesday afternoons off to go to the pub take part in sports and clubs.

I don't think that it is at all deluded to recognise the mediocrity of the vast majority of state schools, Evil.

Then we'll have to agree to differ. I detest the ridiculous generalisations made about state schools by some posters on MN.

There will be plenty who are at those school on scholarships precisely because they are good at sport.

The facilities have to be somewhere, and many private schools have links to local state schools so that a wider range of children have access to those facilities.

I think the majority of it is probably down the the attitude of the parents .

Don't necessarily think where you are educated matters as much as the commitment of your parents when you are a kid. My son state school educated took up rowing at our local club with loads of other state educated kids. He did well as a junior and then at university but it involved one of us getting him to and from training at daft o'clock most days of the week, , taking him and crew to competitions, watching in the wind and rain etc at miserable rowing lakes (Eton Rowing Lake is exposed to all the elements!). Pl

I agree that rowing is not an expensive sport, the clubs buy the boats and then if you get into the GB squad they provide the boats too. The only thing that needs to be paid are club fees (to train at a club) and race fees, plus accommodation if you go to an away regatta. For those who are students or of lesser means, money is often given by the club from their own charitable donations.
I gather half of team GB rowers are from state schools this Olympics which is a result of an initiative about 10 years ago ( when I retired) to get more kids from state schools rowing.
I also swam in my teens and that was actually far more expensive due to the vast amount of competitions I travelled to with my mum ( my chauffeur). It was the cost of petrol driving around the country, hotels, club and competition fees that was crippling as swimmers compete a lot more than rowers.

The problem isn't that the privately educated are over-represented. Them and their parents have done well. Good on them.

The problem is that those educated by the state are under-represented. Basically, if you go to state school the sports facilities will probably be crap, you won't do much PE, and there won't be much extra-curricular stuff going on.

My comp was alright, but the cost of kit and the man-hours to supervise a decent sports programme is expensive.

Everyone should just be average.

I wouldn't put it like that, but I know what you're driving at. If some kids win, the others lose, and there is a tendency to shy away from that within the state system. And they just don't have the resources to push the best kids, whether at sport or academically.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to money. Who would like to pay more tax, or receive less in benefits, or get a lower pension, in order to fund better sports programmes for state schools?

I think it is sad that the moment we get some medals we lock into the same old state vs indie debate. The same row will crop up again on A level and GCSE results days. We as a nation have got to get rid of the 'aint fair' attitude and celebrate success - whoever achieves.

Its great that we are going up the medal tabl

Competition is encouraged in state schools but it's pretty much just restricted to football, and possibly cricket.

This was over 20 years ago but I remember being part of my school hockey club and us badgering the head to let us play competitively against other schools. They allowed it once and because we lost (it was our first game FFS) they decided it wasn't worth the trouble. The boys football team otoh were always disappearing off to play matches and we had a display cabinet to put their trophies in. Have things changed since then? From what I've gathered the answer is no.

If state schools gave other sports and athletics even a quarter of the attention they gave football we'd see a difference.

Smellslike - so because your hockey team wasn't allowed to compete 20 years ago you conclude that ALL state schools are ONLY interested in football

I teach in a state school. Our school rugby, swimming and cricket teams have done well this year, and we have two or three in the county cross country team. Our sports day was very competitive and we also did well in county athletics with one of our students breaking county records in two events. A huge fuss was made of winners in the end of term assembly, and rightly so. We are a bog standard comp

We also came 4th in a national debating competition- not bad for our first attempt.

Competition is alive and well. Having said that, the yr 13 girl who competes in cross country does so with an athletics club, with the support of the school- it would be ludicrous for our PE dept to claim credit for her success.

Sailing, rowing (perception rather than reality) and equestrian are posh.

Cycling, judo, canoeing and athletics are not posh or inaccessible.

But I do agree that if only 7% of kids go to private schools, then the percentage of medal winners to come from such schools should be similar.

Swimming isn't posh either. I don't think Adlington went to private school.

It does matter that the opportunities needed to become an Olympian can only be available to those whose parents can afford a huge amount of money to provide.

It also matters that many kids have no opportunity to participate in competitive sport at all, it's fashionable for schools to deprive their students of competition because those running them don't 'believe' in it.

Could it actually be the other way round?

Promising sportswomen/Olympians are attracted to private schools (perhaps on sports scholarships and/or bursary) because of the better facilities, likelihood of a games department staffed by qualified coaches (who may or may not also be QTS), no Government rules on whether to authorise absences for competitions or high level coaching, and guaranteed return after eg a term off attending a centre of excellence: plus the general flexibility of curriculum permitting unconventional attendance patterns.

Busy child actors and high flying dancer similarly end up in specialist schools or elsewhere in the private sector, as state schools cannot be so flexible.

Gove doesn't believe in sport either, worryingly. Not the only worrying thing about Gove, mind, just one of a plethora.